Reply: Gaia Project:: General:: Re: Poll: Gaia Project in relation to Terra Mystica

by Thunkd

bluesheep wrote:

Thunkd wrote:

bluesheep wrote:

Wow, that is quite a dramatic shift from 'great' to 'good' for TM over the period that GP has been out.

Gaia Project is flat out an improvement on Terra Mystica. While I considered TM great before, I've had to downgrade it now that Gaia Project has shown to be superior.

I don't know... I'd be a bit careful with universal statements like that.

Why? What horrors will befall me for having a strong opinion? What am I risking here?

bluesheep wrote:

There is definitely some interesting improvements like the more dynamic power mechanism

Huh? There's a slight tweak to power in that now if you can't take all the power you're due you just pay for what you take, and if you can't pay for all the power you're due you just take what you pay for, but other than that it's the same.

bluesheep wrote:

the neutral gaia planets

I suppose this is an improvement, but it's not what I had in mind.

bluesheep wrote:

or the higher built-in variability.

I'm guessing you mean the variable map setup? Yes that's an improvement.

I'd also say that the Tech tree is a huge improvement that makes the game more interesting. (Although it does require a bit more effort to teach and learn, but I think that's more than offset by interesting gameplay.) That alone makes it a much better game than TM.

bluesheep wrote:

But for some people (like me), there was also quite a bit of the magic lost in the transition that TM had to offer. I've played about 50 games of TM and an odd 30 of GP and while it might simply be due to the higher amount of games played, the TM sessions were more memorable.

I can't really comment on the "magic" you felt or how "memorable" your TM games were. Those are feelings you experience rather than features of the game. If you'd care to suggest what game features elicited those feelings, we could discuss the merits of them, but otherwise those are just intangibles that there's no way to evaluate.

bluesheep wrote:

I've always felt as if the stakes were higher and the game a lot tighter in TM.

I'm not sure why the stakes would be higher. I do concede that TM is a bit tighter in that it's harder to form cities and to connect your structures for the longest chain goal... but I like that GP is a little more open and allows you a bit more freedom.

bluesheep wrote:

Bottom line: I don't want to start this whole discussion all over, but as the poll clearly shows, there is still a significant group (20% at the moment of writing this post) that likes TM at least equally well if not better (there about equal for me with the slight nostalgic advantage to TM - I rate them bot at 9.5).

20%? The last presidential election was split pretty evenly and I firmly believe that one half of them were completely and utterly wrong. So you're appeal to numbers isn't particularly convincing.

The argument that a small minority believes something to be true isn't very compelling generally... small minorities believe that the earth is flat, ghosts are real, bigfoot exists, etc. Just because X number of people believe something doesn't mean they're right.

bluesheep wrote:

check your ratings - you definitely didn't rate TM down (both GP and TM are an 8 in your book

I just hadn't gotten around to it yet. Thanks for the reminder. I've adjusted it now.